Approaches to motor learning: Cognitive approach versus ecological dinamyc one
The aim is to deepen the knowledge on the scientific evidence between the biomedical and pedagogical part and on the differences of the two approaches commonly used for teaching / learning processes: the cognitive and ecological-dynamic approach on one's own characteristics and specific paradigms. The retrieval of scientific literature took place through the use of specialized web research on: PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, PMCfreearticle, CrossRef by PRISMA method. Motor learning is the stabilized execution of a given movement, executive technique, or gesture. It means that in the face of a number of repetitions most are performed correctly. Cognitive approach places the person at the centre of the teaching / learning process, neglecting the inferences that the surrounding environment produces. Ecological-dynamic approach, which considers motor coordination as an organization emerging from the peripheral constraints of the system rather than from central control structures, is defined as ecological, since it does not consider the aspects of motor coordination within the individual but, more generally, the complex interaction between the individual and the environment and the circular relationship between perception and action. The characteristics and paradigms of two approaches highlight two opposite ways to motor learning with an unsolved problem on which one is correct to use in physical education and sports performance.
Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of motor behavior, 3(2), 111-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1971.10734898
Bernstein, N. (1966). The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon Press; [1st English ed.].
Bernstein, N. A. (2014). Dexterity and its development. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603357
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2007). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 251-278. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305615
Chow, J. Y. (2013). Nonlinear learning underpinning pedagogy: evidence, challenges, and implications. Quest, 65(4), 469-484. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2013.807746
Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Human Kinetics.
Dhawale, A. K., Smith, M. A., & Ölveczky, B. P. (2017). The role of variability in motor learning. Annual review of neuroscience, 40, 479-498. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031548
D'Isanto, T., D'Elia, F., Raiola, G., & Altavilla, G. (2019). Assessment of sport performance: Theoretical aspects and practical indications. Sport Mont, 17(1), 79-82. https://doi.org/10.26773/smj.190214
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual review of psychology, 64, 135-168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740218
Graser, J. V., Bastiaenen, C. H., & van Hedel, H. J. (2019). The role of the practice order: A systematic review about contextual interference in children. PloS one, 14(1), e0209979. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209979
Haken, H., Kelso, J. S., & Bunz, H. (1985). A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements. Biological cybernetics, 51(5), 347-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00336922
Hassler, R. (1978). Striatal control of locomotion, intentional actions and of integrating and perceptive activity. Journal of the neurological sciences, 36(2), 187-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-510X(78)90082-5
Hastie, P., & Siedentop, D. (1999). An ecological perspective on physical education. European Physical Education Review, 5(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X990051002
Heft, H. (1989). Affordances and the body: An intentional analysis of Gibson's ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the theory of social behaviour, 19(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00133.x
Keele, S. W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological bulletin, 70(6p1), 387. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026739
Kelso, J. S. (1994). The informational character of self-organized coordination dynamics. Human Movement Science, 13(3-4), 393-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(94)90047-7
Kerr, R., & Booth, B. (1978). Specific and varied practice of motor skill. Perceptual and motor skills, 46(2), 395-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/003151257804600201
Komar, J., Potdevin, F., Chollet, D., & Seifert, L. (2019). Between exploitation and exploration of motor behaviours: Unpacking the constraints-led approach to foster nonlinear learning in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(2), 133-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1557133
Lee, T. D., Swanson, L. R., & Hall, A. L. (1991). What is repeated in a repetition? Effects of practice conditions on motor skill acquisition. Physical therapy, 71(2), 150-156. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/71.2.150
Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Human movement science, 9(3-5), 241-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(90)90005-X
Merbah, S., & Meulemans, T. (2011). Learning a motor skill: Effects of blocked versus random practice: A review. Psychologica Belgica, 51(1), 15-48. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-51-1-15
Newell, K. M., Van Emmerik, R. E. A., & McDonald, P. V. (1989). Biomechanical constraints and action theory. Human Movement Science, 8(4), 403-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(89)90045-6
Raiola, G. (2014). Motor control and learning skills according to cognitive and ecological dynamic approach in a vision on behaviorism, cognitive, Gestalt and phenomenology theories. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(15), 504-504. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n15p504
Renshaw, I., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Hammond, J. (2010). A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill acquisition and game play: A basis for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis?. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(2), 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980902791586
Renshaw, I., Araújo, D., Button, C., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Moy, B. (2016). Why the constraints-led approach is not teaching games for understanding: A clarification. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(5), 459-480. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1095870
Renshaw, I., & Chow, J. Y. (2019). A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(2), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1552676
Schmidt, R. A., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2008). Motor learning and performance: A situation-based learning approach. Human Kinetics.
Schmidt, R. A., Lee, T. D., Winstein, C., Wulf, G., & Zelaznik, H. N. (2018). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Human Kinetics.
Swinnen, S. P., Schmidt, R. A., Nicholson, D. E., & Shapiro, D. C. (1990). Information feedback for skill acquisition: Instantaneous knowledge of results degrades learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-73220.127.116.116
Tomporowski, P. D., McCullick, B., Pendleton, D. M., & Pesce, C. (2015). Exercise and children's cognition: The role of exercise characteristics and a place for metacognition. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(1), 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.09.003
Warren, W. H. (2006). The dynamics of perception and action. Psychological review, 113(2), 358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.358
Wolpert, D. M., & Kawato, M. (1998). Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural networks, 11(7-8), 1317-1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-6080(98)00066-5
Copyright (c) 2021 Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.